Examples

Examples from practice

EU: Mainstreaming through a new adaptation strategy

Download Method Brief (pdf)

A new EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change:                                                    Fostering mainstreaming at the EU level

The Approach

The European Union (EU) is developing an EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change to be adopted in spring 2013. One of its three objectives is to mainstream adaptation into policies, strategies and programmes at the EU level.

 Scope and entry points

The development process builds on the White Paper ‘Adapting to climate change: Towards a European Framework for Action’ (COM(2009) 147 final) adopted on 1 April 2009. This Paper already places a strong focus on mainstreaming adaptation and foresees the development of a comprehensive EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change by 2013.

 How it works

The general objective of mainstreaming adaptation into policies at the EU level, including revision of legislation to include climate adaptation, will be operationalised through several mainstreaming strategies. Points of discussion have included:

  • Earmarking of 20% of the 2014-2020 budget (Multiannual Financial Framework) for climate-related expenditures.
  • Mainstreaming of climate action in the future Cohesion Policy, Common Agriculture Policy, Research & Innovation (Horizon 2020), Common Fisheries Policy and other sector policies.
  • Having a dedicated programme for climate action (1/3 of budget) and a funding line for adaptation within the Environment Funding Programme LIFE+.

One approach to support mainstreaming is the online platform Climate-ADAPT, which is already operational and aims to facilitate exchange and knowledge dissemination. For each sector with relevance to adaptation, the platform provides:

  • A database comprised of publications, projects, guidance documents and case studies.
  • Tools, indicators and maps for adaptation planning.
  • Information on sectoral policies and spatial entities (countries, regions, cities, etc).

Specifics of application

  • Input
    All of the institutions and networks mentioned above provide expertise to guide the development process of an EU Adaptation Strategy. By the end of 2011, a contract for technical support had also been launched. In addition, a study on climate proofing for Cohesion and Agricultural policies was launched simultaneously with a project on adaptation strategies for European cities.
  • Stakeholders and institutional set-up
    The European Commission is the lead agency for developing the EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change, and an Adaptation Steering Group (ASG) was created in September 2010 to assist the Commission. The ASG brings together member states, research institutions, business associations, NGOs and other organisations, and contributes to the preparatory work for the adaptation strategy.In addition, an inter-service group on adaptation has been set up and meets on a regular basis. It discusses progress towards mainstreaming adaptation into the EU policies and how to ensure effective synergies between the EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change and other relevant work being undertaken by the Commission. The Working Group on the Knowledge Base (WGKB), which consists of researchers, scientists, academics and other stakeholders, also feeds into the ASG. The WGKB shares knowledge, experiences, information and research on climate impacts, vulnerability and adaptation, and provides advice on research needs. In 2012, a formal stakeholder consultation was undertaken.
  • Output
    The main product will be an EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change to be adopted by 2013. Other supportive outputs are (i) the online platform Climate-ADAPT, launched in 2012, with its strong focus on dissemination of knowledge, and (ii) the provision of adaptation funds through several financing instruments of the EU, in particular LIFE+ and the 20% of the EU budget earmarked for all types of climate action (mitigation and adaptation).
  • Capacity required and ease of use
    A high level of expertise, capacity, knowledge and political will is required, along with effective coordination among various actors.

Conclusions for future application

  • Outcome and added value
    If the EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change is adopted with a strong mainstreaming approach, it can be expected to have a significant influence on all relevant EU sector policies.
  • Cost-benefit ratio
    The relatively ambitious development process seems appropriate considering the potentially large benefit at the EU level for many different policy fields
  • Potential for replication
    The complex development process and amount of input needed present challenges for replication in similar bodies of government. However, different elements of the mainstreaming approach can be of great interest for replication, such as the online platform Climate-ADAPT including sector-wise specifications for mainstreaming as well as the approach to earmark defined amounts for adaptation in relevant financing frameworks.

References

Web-based information

European Commission Website on Adaptation to Climate Change

EU White Paper: Adapting to climate change: Towards a European framework for action (COM(2009) 147)
Download PDF

EU knowledge platform Climate-ADAPT

Reference person

Ms Rosario Bento Pais, Head of Unit, Adaptation to Climate Change, DG CLIMA, European Commission, B-1049 BRUSSELS

 

Germany: Mainstreaming adaptation into coastal protection

Download Method Brief (pdf)

The Approach

The German State of Schleswig-Holstein mainstreamed adaptation needs into its revised “Master Plan for Coastal Protection” by pursuing an approach for maximal flexibility to different future climate change scenarios.

Scope and entry points

The flood-prone German State of Schleswig-Holstein, located between two seas (North Sea, Baltic Sea) revises its “Master Plan for Coastal Protection” approximately once every 10 – 15 years. During the most recent revision, which was adopted by the Cabinet in 2012, there was recognition of the need for adapting to climate change, which led to a generally different construction of dykes.

How it works

In preparation for revising the “Master Plan for Coastal Protection”, existing projections and scenarios for sea level rise on the German coasts were analysed, based mainly on the condensed indications in the 2007 IPCC Report. More recent and specific research studies for the German Bight led to projections with a much higher range: from 0.4 to 1.4 m by 2100 (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Projected Sea Level Rise in the German Bight. Source: Horton et al., 2008.

The new findings pose challenges with regard to the development of a coastal protection concept that is both safe and flexible. Due to the large range of different projections, it was not economically efficient to use the worst-case scenario to determine the need for reinforcing or raising the dykes. Therefore, the new coastal protection strategy is based on the following principles:

  • Dyke construction concepts with an inherent flexibility; and
  • No-regret measures, which are also justifiable if the worst-case scenarios do not materialise.

The result was a construction concept that broadens the dyke’s base (dark green profile in Figure 2) and, therefore allows for an additional “cap” on top to be built later if sea level rise becomes more serious than under average scenarios. This capping (marked in red in Figure 2) is much cheaper than a potentially new construction towards the end of the century.

In addition, the Master Plan sets a stronger focus on improved disaster response and on integrating flood protection into land use planning to reduce flood-related vulnerability.

Figure 2: Capping Concept for dyke construction. Source: Master Plan for coastal protection in Schleswig-Holstein (2012, p.60).

Specifics of application

  •  Stakeholders and institutional set-up

The lead agency for the development of the revised Master Plan for Coastal Protection was the Department of Water Management within the Ministry for Energy Transformation, Agriculture, Environment and Rural Areas of Schleswig-Holstein. The lead agency also involved other concerned government agencies, and a comprehensive public consultation process was conducted based on a draft version of the Master Plan. It included five regional conferences and the collection of written comments. The draft was finally debated within an advisory council to the Minister, and the concept was harmonised among the North German coastal states.

  • Input

The main expertise was provided by the Ministry and State Agency responsible for coastal protection. During the revision process, the findings of recent scientific studies were assessed, but no new studies were commissioned in the context of developing the Master Plan.

  • Output

The main output is a revised comprehensive Master Plan for Coastal Protection including various stipulations on construction concepts, priority actions, consequences for land-use planning etc. The Master Plan includes various maps and technical specifications.

  • Capacity required and ease of use

The revision process can be considered ambitious and resource intensive. Government institutions undertook most of the planning activities within the scope of their regular duties. Strong technical expertise is required concerning dyke construction, coastal protection mechanisms and planning instruments.

 References

For further information, please contact:

Dr. Jacobus Hofstede, Ministry for Energy Transition, Agriculture, Environment and Rural Areas, (Ministerium für Energiewende, Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume), Division 4: Water management, sea and coastal protection, (Abt 4 Wasserwirtschaft, Meeres- und Küstenschutz), E: Jacobus.Hofstede@melur.landsh.de

India: Climate proofing of watershed development

Integrating adaptation options into watershed development planning: Employing the climate proofing tool of GIZ

The Tool

Climate Proofing for Development is a methodological tool to incorporate the concerns surrounding climate variability and change into development planning. It enables planners and decision makers to identify risks posed by current and future climatic changes, to pinpoint opportunities resulting from climate change and to make use of co-benefits of resilience building measures.

Under the Indo-German project ‘Climate Change Adaptation in Rural Areas of India (CCA RAI)’, this tool was applied to the Watershed Development Programmes of the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD). Two pilot projects were conducted in the Dindigul district of Tamil Nadu, and the Udaipur district of Rajasthan.

Scope and Entry Points

The Watershed Development Programme involves soil and moisture conservation activities in a drainage basin or catchment area with the aim of improving the standard of living of the people by improving the environment. NABARD manages a vast watershed development portfolio, spread across various states of India .The Watershed Development Fund Programme (WDF) and the Indo-German Watershed Development Programme (IGWDP) are the two main programmes of NABARD which look at conservation, regeneration and judicious utilization of natural resources through incorporating soil and water conservation measures, crop management strategies and other farm and non-farm activities to develop community assets and resources for sustainable rural development.

NABARD requested GIZ to assist them in piloting climate proofing in two watersheds of the Dindigul district in Tamil Nadu under the WDF and two watersheds of the Udaipur district in Rajasthan under the IGWDP.

Through the application of the climate proofing tool, the impacts of climate change on soil, agriculture, forests, pastureland, livestock and communities within the four watersheds were studied. Following this analysis, treatment measures for implementation were identified which can increase the resilience of the watershed and build adaptive capacities of the communities. Where found necessary, typical watershed development measures were customized according to the climate change analysis and incorporated in the final implementation plan. Watersheds thus become resilient to current and future climatic changes.

How it works

This tool is participatory in nature and involves a combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches. The process can be broadly classified as follows:

  1. Data collection: This involves collection of baseline and future climate information and socio-economic data of the watershed and local communities from primary and secondary sources.
  2. Climate Analysis: Based on the climate data, actual or potential bio-physical and socio-economic impacts of climate change on the chosen unit of measurement (in this case the natural system of the watersheds and communities living within the watershed), are analyzed.
  3. Identification and prioritization of adaptation options: Based on baseline climate conditions and projected climate scenarios, prioritized treatment measures and adaptation options are recommended for implementation.
  4. Integration: With the involvement of community members from the watershed, NGOs, NABARD officers and concerned state departments the recommended options are reviewed and prioritized. Selected options are then integrated into the planning documents and implemented. Climate considerations thus become part of the entire development process.

Specifics of Application

  • Stakeholders and institutional set-up

In order to integrate adaptation options into the watershed development programmes, NABARD took the lead in implementation, with the technical and financial support of experts from GIZ. Scientific experts from the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University and a private consultancy firm were responsible for climate and agriculture data collection and analysis. Community data collection, community mobilization and facilitation of the projects’ implementation in the field was carried out by the project implementing agencies which are generally NGOs.

  • Input

Besides the expertise of different stakeholders, effective application of this tool requires reliable weather data for baseline climate assessment and expertise to assess future climate projections.

  • Output

The integration of the adaptation options is done employing the climate proofing table which helps in arriving at the recommended adaptation options by taking into consideration the exposure unit, climatic stress, non-climatic stresses, sensitivities and the existing adaptive capacities.

  • Capacity required and ease of use

An in-depth understanding of the change in the climatic components over the years, e.g. rainfall, temperature, as well as an understanding the development programme under review is a prerequisite for carrying out a climate proofing exercise. It also requires the ability to distinguish concrete adaptation activities from the business as usual development programmes. Expertise to work on climate models, and perform scientific data analysis is beneficial for scientifically sound adaptation recommendations.

Conclusions for future application

  • Outcome and added value

The Climate proofing tool was used to identify and prioritize adaptation options and also to customize the treatment measures according to the climate change analysis. These recommended adaptation options have been integrated in the planning process of WDF and IGWDP programmes.

  • Cost-benefit ratio

The climate change adaptation interventions which are additional to the normal watershed treatments are budgeted separately based on the concrete adaptation role. This will ensure that there is reduction in risk for the watershed development investments made by NABARD.

  • Potential for replication

Climate proofing for development (GTZ, 2010) is a tool which involves a generic sequential process which, with slight customization, can be applied to a variety of different schemes.

This, along with the required capacities makes it a highly potential tool for replication to mainstream adaptation into development planning. The possible next step of this intervention will be to mainstream integrate adaptation measures into the national watershed management programme of the Ministry of Rural Development.

References:

  • GIZ, 2012. ‘Climate Proofing for Implementing Watershed Development Programmes in Appeampatti and Poosaripatti Watersheds Of Dindigul District’, Deutsche Gesellschaft für internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH.
  • Fröde, A., and Hahn, M., 2010. ‘Climate Proofing for Development: adapting to climate change, reducing risk’, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit GTZ), Eschborn.

Resource person:

  • Ms. Anna Kalisch, Advisor, Project Climate Change Adaptation in Rural Areas of India (CCA RAI), GIZ. Anna.Kalisch@giz.de
  • Mr. Unnikrishnan Divakaran Nair, Senior Advisor, Umbrella Programme on Natural Resource Management (UPNRM), GIZ. Unnikrishnan.divakaran@giz.de
  • Ms. Saumya Mathur, Junior Project Officer, Natural Resource Management, GIZ. Saumya.mathur@giz.de
Indonesia: CC Mainstreaming in watersheds

Download Method Brief (pdf)

The approach

The Centre for Climate Risk and Opportunity Management (CCROM) introduced a comprehensive approach for mainstreaming Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) and Climate Change Mitigation (CCM) within the framework of Water Resources Management at catchment level. It was piloted for the Citarum River watershed in West Java, Indonesia.

Scope and entry points

The core of the whole process is to integrate CCA and CCM options into catchment management and local development planning. In doing so, the approach supports a resilient and less carbon intensive development strategy in the catchment area. It was conducted as part of the Integrated Citarum Water Resources Management Investment Programme (supported by the Asian Development Bank, ADB) that began in 2010 and is projected for 15 years.

How it works

The approach can be divided into three parts (Figure 1). Part 1 covers the identification of adaptation options based on vulnerability and risk analyses. Part 2 focuses on the integration of adaptation and mitigation options into regional water resources management development plans, followed by the process of Part 3 for monitoring and evaluating implementation. Part 1 starts with projections/scenarios for future development of climate parameters, water resources availability and land-use patterns. The latter influence future water availability. Risk analysis considers the probability and impacts of harmful events such as floods, drought/water scarcity and hydro-power scarcity. The impacts of these events are represented by vulnerability indices, determined using a vulnerability assessment that is conducted at the village and household levels. The combination of vulnerability and risk analyses allows for the identification of areas to be prioritised for adaptation actions. Part 1 results in a strategic framework of CCA and CCM options.

Part 2 connects adaptation options as defined in Part 1 with inputs from local stakeholders within a multi-party process. It includes exploration of actions already pursued by local communities and might result in the re-orientation and prioritisation of actions. Final results will be synergised with and integrated into local development policies and the local medium-term development plan (RPJMP).

Part 3 organises the implementation and assesses whether the actions reduce vulnerability and carbon intensity of the societal system in the catchment area, as intended. Evaluation of vulnerability changes (vulnerability index) might require new vulnerability assessments.

Specifics of application

  • Stakeholders and institutional set-up
    The main stakeholders of this approach are provincial government and local water resources boards/offices. The multi-stakeholder processes are organised by the Ministry of Environment with support from provincial government
  • Input
    The approach requires a team including experts such as a climatologist or meteorologist, hydro-climatologist or water resource management expert, and social scientists focusing on institutional development and vulnerability assessment. The team also requires 3-4 junior scientists to support data collection and assessment. Required data includes climate data for climate analysis, socio-economic data for vulnerability assessment, and standard topography maps for spatial risk analysis. Land-use maps and satellite photos are useful for land-use analysis and projections. Observed climate data can be obtained from local meteorological offices or local climate stations and the National Agency for Meteorology, Climatology and Geophysics BMKG. Global Climate Model (GCM) data are available at the IPCC Data Distribution Centre, while socio-economic data are available at government offices or the Bureau of Statistics. In addition, a regional climate model for GCM down-scaling and a Geographical Information System (GIS) are necessary.The implementation of this approach may require 10-12 months to complete the conceptual framework and reporting. This includes climate change projections that take around 3-6 months, as well as risk analysis and vulnerability assessments that take 3 months.
  • Output
    The main output is a contribution framework to the local development plan.
  • Capacity required and ease of use
    The approach requires a large amount of data, which may not always be available or accessible. It is necessary to have support from institutions that possess data. Experts and resources for projections and analyses may be a bottleneck when replicating the approach beyond a well-supported pilot.

Conclusions for future application

  • Outcome and added value
    The approach has been successful in supporting adaptation-related decisions in the pilot area, and in determining pilot sites for prioritised CCA and CCM actions.
  • Cost-benefit ratio
    The cost-benefit ratio seems to be acceptable only in cases of exceptional benefit, for example in the case of watersheds of high importance for water supply, biodiversity or flood protection.
  • Potential for replication
    The approach is relevant and transferable to river basins of similar importance as the Citarum River with its relevance to Jakarta’s water supply. Funds may be made available from the central government and other institutions for such priority catchments, expertise from university and other institutions of excellence.

References

Reference persons for further information:

Mr Haneda Sri Mulyanto, Climate Change Vulnerability Division, Ministry of Environment. Jl. D.I. Panjaitan Kav. 24 Building A, 6th Floor, Jakarta Timur 13140, Indonesia. Email: haneda.moei@gmail.com

Prof. Rizaldi Boer, Head of Centre for Climate Risk and Opportunity Management, Bogor Agricultural University (CCROM-IPB), Kampus IPB Baranangsiang, Jl. Raya Padjajaran Bogor 16143, Indonesia. Email: rizaldiboer@gmail.com

For more information please see the website of the programme “Institutional Strengthening for Integrated Water Resources Management”.

Indonesia: Climate resilience strategies for cities

Download Method Brief (pdf)

The approach

The Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network (ACCCRN) is a relatively advanced approach for integrating and mainstreaming climate change adaptation into city development planning through a Climate Resilience Strategy (CRS) and for building capacity of cities to plan and implement climate change resilience strategies. It was tested in 10 pilot cities in Asian countries (Viet Nam, Indonesia, India, Thailand). This Method Brief documents pilots in Indonesia (Bandar Lampung, Semarang City).

Scope and entry points

The entry point for the approach is urban development and spatial planning. A CRS is being elaborated by a city working group and integrated into long-term, mid-term and annual urban development planning.

How it works

The approach comprises an organised process of several steps as illustrated in Figure 1. It starts with identifying key government institutions including available centres of excellence. This step aims at ensuring government support and developing a platform for civil society engagement, which then facilitates the integration of the CRS into mid-term city planning (RPJMD) and the elaboration of sectoral plans of relevance to city planning.

The next step is the establishment of a City Working Group (CWG) comprising government officials from different sectors, local NGOs and academics. CWG is divided into several teams with corresponding responsibilities for: identifying city profile and conditions, climate history and future, impact of extreme climate events; city vulnerability and adaptive capacity mapping; and analysing the government institutional system including effectiveness of current initiatives and programmes with relevance to adaptation.

The identified city profile and conditions are important for developing appropriate adaptation action. The profile includes geographic, resources, municipal administration, demographic, spatial, social, economic and livelihood information. Climate history and projected future development are based on historical extreme climate and weather events, rainfall and temperature trends. Projection of climate development uses REGional Climate Model version 3 (RegCM3) and 14 Global Climate Models (GCM). Projected biophysical and socio-economic impacts are assessed as a basis for the subsequent climate risk analysis.

A further step includes vulnerability and adaptive capacity mapping based on vulnerability analysis from socio-economic and biophysical data at kelurahan (village) level. Future projections of vulnerability consider changes in population density, non-vegetated open land, and level of education (based on spatial planning) since other data is not available.

Climate risk analysis follows the definition by Beer and Ziolkowski (1995) and Jones (2004). Accordingly, risk is defined as a function of probability and impact of a climate event. Potential risks can be ranked in a risk matrix. Adaptation and action planning is based on the analyses of climate risk and the government institutional system. It will be synergised and integrated into RPJMD through the City Resilience Strategy (CRS).

Shared Learning Dialogues (SLD) are an integral part of the ACCCRN processes. They are a forum for introducing, discussing and disseminating information. The forum’s participants also include non-CWG members such as outside experts, and a broad representation of the city’s stakeholders. SLDs should be designed with as much local input as possible.

Specifics of application

  • Stakeholders and institutional set-up
    The City Working Group (CWG) leads the process. The Local Development Planning Board (BAPPEDA) or the Local Environmental Office (BAPPEDALDA) oversees CWG management and responsibilities in planning, as well as the use of public development funds. The CWG structure enables integration of ACCCRN activities into city planning processes and budget cycles.
  • Input
    The approach requires a number of sectoral experts such as disaster experts, and climatologists or meteorologists. The approach depends on a set of climate data for climate analysis, socio-economic data for vulnerability assessment, and standard topography maps (peta rupa bumi) for risk analysis and area typology assessment. Observed climate data are available at local meteorological offices or BMKG, and GCM data can be drawn from the IPCC Data Distribution Centre. Socio-economic data are available at government offices, e.g. Bureau of Statistics. The ACCCRN approach may require nine months to be completed, depending mainly on data availability.
  • Output
    The main output is the City Resilience Strategy (CRS).
  • Capacity required and ease of use
    The approach requires profound expertise and a large amount of data that may not always be available or accessible. The biggest concern remains the rotation of government staff, including key staff. Unless ‘champions’ are in place, there is always a possibility of programme interventions being cancelled and climate-related policies dropped.

Conclusions for future application

  • Outcome and added value
    Despite successfully integrating CRS and climate change issues into the RPJMD, several concerns were raised on issues such as the remaining sectoral gaps. This was largely because CWG members lacked sufficient technical capacity to broadly assess vulnerability and to plan a resilience strategy.
  • Cost-benefit ratio
    Despite the relatively high cost and demand for resources, the cost-benefit ratio can be sufficient if the approach leads to significant improvements regarding climate change resilience of the City Plans. There is some indication that the expectations in this respect are realistic.
  • Potential for replication
    Successful implementation depends on data availability, experts to support the work, and funding. The integration of CRS into the development plan and budget currently depends on local government awareness and priorities. A good potential for replication can be assumed whenever there is outside funding such as the support of the Rockefeller Foundation in the case of the Indonesian examples.

References

Reference person for further details:

Budi Chairuddin, National Engagement Coordinator for Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network (ACCCRN). Email: bchairuddin@id.mercycorps.org

Websites providing more details on the approach:

http://www.acccrn.org/

https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/

Further reading on this topic:

Beer, T and Ziolkowski, F (1995): Environmental risk assessment: An Australian perspective. Supervising Scientist Report 102.

Jones, RN (2004): Managing Climate Change Risks, in Agrawal S and Corfee-Morlot J (eds.), The Benefits of Climate Change Policies: Analytical and Framework Issues, OECD, Paris, 249–298. Accessible free of charge under Google Books

Sutarto, R and Jarvie, J (2012): Integrating Climate Resilience Strategy into City Planning in Semarang, Indonesia, Climate Resilience Working Paper No. 2, 25pp, ISET-International: Boulder.

Indonesia: Integrated Climate Action in Cities

Download Method Brief (pdf)

The approach

The GIZ programme Policy Advice for Environment and Climate Change (PAKLIM) developed an approach for Integrated Climate Action (ICA) planning in Indonesian cities (PAKLIM-ICA), which includes both mitigation and adaptation. It was conducted as a pilot in eight Indonesian cities and localities in Java.

Scope and entry points

The entry points for the PAKLIM-ICA approach are urban development processes as well as the need for a climate action plan articulated by the local government. Within this framework, the approach supports elaboration of the plan based on a systematic participatory process.

How it works

The whole process can be divided into four sequential phases: (i) context establishment; (ii) prioritised area assessment and goal setting; (iii) development of Integrated Climate Action (ICA) for a City Climate Strategy; and (iv) monitoring and evaluation.

The context establishment phase covers the activities of establishing a steering committee, completing a GHG emission inventory, and identifying risks and opportunities for GHG emission reduction, as well as the mapping of climate change impacts and identification of risks and opportunities for adaptation. The identification of climate change risks is based on information about local extreme events, projected local climate variables and projected local impacts. Climate impacts, for examples, include tide surges, floods, landslides, vector diseases and crop failures. The climate change risk is defined by the likelihood of occurrences and the effects of these projected impacts on the city.

The second phase covers the identification of prioritised areas for actions and goals setting. The goals, for example, include emission reduction targets as well as targets for enhancing adaptive capacity and resilience. This phase includes an analysis of potential risks of prioritised areas and deducing potential actions for adaptation.

The third phase covers the development of an ICA plan and the implementation of actions. The process includes finding agreement on key sectors to be addressed and related joint strategies for mitigation and adaptation, and the setting of realistic targets for both mitigation and adaptation actions within defined timeframes. The ICA plan is expected to attract private investment and international incentives in addition to central government, local and private funds. It is also expected to be implemented within the context of signed agreements with city governments.

The last phase focuses on monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of actions. This includes assessment of target achievement, and systematically reconsidering the strategy and actions when necessary.

Specifics of application

  • Stakeholders and institutional set-up
    City governments are the main stakeholders for this approach. The steering committee is the main coordinating body, and is comprised of participants appointed by the mayors. The Ministry of Environment is responsible for increasing awareness and the capacity of local governments on climate change issues.
  • Input
    Usually, the approach requires an expert on climate change to support the steering committee. This process depends on the availability of a significant amount of data for the GHG inventory and the climate impact mapping. From establishing the context to the integration of the ICA plan into the city planning, the process may take about 16 months, whereas the implementation of actions and their evaluation will extend beyond this timeframe.
  • Output
    The intermediate outputs within the process are a GHG inventory and climate impact maps, while the final output is an ICA plan including specifications for implementation and monitoring.
  • Capacity required and ease of use

The process requires good local knowledge and commitment by the local bodies, an effective steering function by the lead agency, and pro-active involvement of all relevant sector agencies. The approach is more straightforward and less capacity-intensive than other comparable approaches, but still needs a well-organised process, expert resources and local commitment.

Conclusions for future application

  • Outcome and added value
    The PAKLIM-ICA approach, as implemented in eight cities in Java, has successfully identified integrated mitigation and adaptation options. Implementation of some of the ICA options will require additional funds.
  • Cost-benefit ratio
    The approach is relatively low-cost, and the financial resources for the plan development are mainly for the consultant’s fee, data collection and the coordination process. This implies a high cost-benefit-ratio if the process eventually results in an implementable and agreed ICA plan.
  • Potential for replication
    The approach might well be replicated, and two more cities have already been selected. A support role by the Ministry of Environment would strongly promote the mainstreaming of the approach. The time required for conducting the process is quite long and depends on the availability and accessibility of data. Therefore, the involved local bodies must have endurance. In addition, the approach may face organisational challenges that are different for each city. In many cities, data is lacking due to poor documentation and / or unreliable data. An approach hand-tailored to specific city conditions might be necessary.

References

Reference persons for further details:

Purnomo Sidi, purnomo.sidi@giz.de and Philipp Munzinger, philipp.munzinger@giz.de
GIZ Policy Advice for Environment and Climate Change

Website with detailed information on the project.

Indonesia: Risk & Adaptation Assessment

Download Method Brief (pdf)

Approach

Climate Change Risk and Adaptation Assessment (CRAA), also known as KRAPI (Kajian Risiko dan Adaptasi Perubahan Iklim), is an approach that includes a multi-hazard and multi-sector climate risk assessment in its first part. In its second part, it provides the basis for developing and selecting appropriate adaption measures, and a process to mainstream these adaptation measures into existing development policies. The approach was piloted in selected Indonesian provinces, districts and cities (Lombok Island, Tarakan City, South Sumatra and Greater Malang).

Scope and entry points

KRAPI becomes relevant within planning processes at provincial and district level, where it supports decision-makers to better reflect future climate-related risks. It was launched as part of the development processes.

How it works

The approach comprises a process of identifying and projecting climate risks as well as reflecting them during development of adaptation measures. The process steps are illustrated in Figure 1. The approach starts with problem identification, mainly based on consultations (i) with the general public to collect stakeholder feedback, (ii) with local government offices and relevant government agencies such as the National and Local Disaster Mitigation Boards (BNPB and BPBD), Environmental Protection Offices (BPLHD and Bappedalda), and (iii) with experts from predetermined climate-dependent sectors. Findings from these consultations provide the basis for detailed hazard analysis and vulnerability assessment.

 Climate trends are being analysed by applying and downscaling Global Climate Model (GCM) data and by then validating these data. The outputs of the climate analysis are used for current (baseline) and projected hazard analysis, based on several impact models and statistical methods for empirical impact analysis such as: HECRAS for flood analysis, GEOSLOPE for landslide analysis, water balance and water budget for water shortage, regression and correlation for vector-borne disease incidents.

Both baseline and projected impacts are being used to assess the baseline and projected future risks resulting from climate change. The projection of risks also requires a systematic assessment of vulnerabilities including the components of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity in accordance with the IPCC definition. Indicators of each vulnerability component are determined by experts. This assessment also has to reflect that vulnerability components and their indicators will change over time (dynamic assessment).

Climate risk is a function of climate hazard and vulnerability. These two factors are integrated and operationalized by overlaying hazard and vulnerability maps using a spatial information system, and then classifying the results based on a ‘Risk Chart’. Comparing future risks with baseline risks can identify contributions from climate change.

Identification of adaptation options is based on results of the climate risk assessment under consideration of specific features of the target area. The selection of appropriate adaptation options is supported by checklists.

Specifics of application

  • Input
    The approach requires 3-6 sectoral disaster experts (depending on number of sectors studied), and a climatologist or meteorologist. The approach depends on a set of climate data for climate analysis, a set of socio-economic data for vulnerability assessment, and standard topography maps (peta rupa bumi) for risk analysis and area typology assessment. Observed climate data are available at local meteorological offices or the National Agency for Meteorology, Climatology and Geophysics (BMKG). GCM data can be drawn from the IPCC Data Distribution Centre. The socio-economic data are available at government offices like the Bureau of Statistics. The first part of the KRAPI approach may require 6-12 months for completion, depending mainly on data availability, while the second part of the KRAPI approach requires 8-11 months.
  • Stakeholders and institutional set-up
    The main stakeholders of this approach are provincial and district/city governments whose sector planning might be affected by climate change. The Ministry of Environment plays a coordinating role, while other institutions that support the application include the National and Local Disaster Mitigation Boards as well as Local Environmental Protection Boards or offices.
  • Output
    The main outputs are risk maps that serve as support tools for decision-makers (first part) as well as a list of adaptation options agreed upon by involved stakeholders and mainstreamed into the development policies.
  • Capacity required and ease of use
    The approach requires a large amount of data that may not always be available or accessible. Accordingly, it is necessary to have support from the institutions that possess the data. Specific expertise is required for climate trend and hazard analyses. Universities and institutions may not have experts with sufficient levels of capacity.

Conclusions for future application

  • Outcome and added value
    Due to the pilot character of this project, there is no evidence yet about how the approach has affected decision-making relevant to adaptation in the pilot areas.
  • Cost-benefit ratio
    Final calculation of the cost-benefit ratio depends on the identification of outcomes. However, even now it can be indicated that the costs are relatively high.
  • Potential for replication
    Due to its resource intensiveness, the approach is especially applicable to other provinces and districts/cities if support is being provided, for example by national institutions. Application might be restricted to selected areas, which are especially at risk from climate change.

Reference person for further information

Mr Haneda Sri Mulyanto, Climate Change Vulnerability Division, Ministry of Environment. Jl. D.I. Panjaitan Kav. 24 Building A, 6th Floor, Jakarta Timur 13140, Indonesia. Email: haneda.moei@gmail.com

Mexico: Cost-benefit analysis for prioritising climate change adaptation measures

Download Method Brief (pdf)

Approach

Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is a tool for comparing the costs and benefits of a project or measure in monetary terms and so help improve the allocation of public resources. This is relevant for decision-making, since budget constraints do not allow all institutions or individuals to implement all actions proposed. In the past few years CBA has been increasingly discussed as a tool for evaluating adaptation projects and measures.

Scope and entry points

In its recent climate change law as well as its National Climate Change Strategy, the Mexican Government expressed the need to mitigate and adapt to climate change. As adaptation is identified as a priority at the national and subnational levels, there is a need to develop tools to assist in decision-making processes. As the lead organisation in the sector, the Mexican Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) is working together with the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) in developing and piloting a methodology for prioritising climate change adaptation measures using multi-criteria analyses (MCAs) and CBAs within three pilot sectors: irrigated agriculture, water, and forests within natural protected areas. The MCA is used for a pre-selection of adaptation measures. Measures that are deemed suitable based on the MCA are scrutinised in more detail in the CBA (see this method brief on the MCA methodology used in Mexico).

How it works

CBA compares the costs and benefits of an adaptation measure or project expressed in monetary terms. This comparison can demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of an adaptation investment for decision-makers.

When conducting a CBA, one must first agree on the adaptation objective and establish whether it can be quantified in monetary terms (e.g. reduced rehabilitation costs in case of flooding). Defining an adaptation objective helps determine what exactly is being evaluated and the information needed to obtain the results. This adaptation objective cannot be determined decoupled from its context; it should be defined based on the relevant climate change impacts identified as well as the vulnerability in the region under study, which form the basis of the design of an adaptation measure.

After defining the objective, it is essential to define the baseline scenario that will help to evaluate the costs and benefits of adaptation without taking action compared to the costs and benefits of implementing an adaptation project or action. Both costs and benefits should be assessed as being either direct or indirect. Benefits should also include avoided damages and co-benefits of the actions to be evaluated. One of the most important challenges of CBAs is obtaining a quantifiable measure of intangible costs and benefits. These can be evaluated and qantified through non-market-based approaches (e.g. contingent valuation, etc.).

Aggregating costs and benefits allows computing the net present value (NPV), which is the difference between costs and benefits considering the present value of money, to be determined. The final NPV gives decision-makers an indicator as to which project(s) can be more effective for each dollar invested. The higher the NPV is, the more effective the project is, while a negative NPV represents an ineffective project, and, based on this economic valuation, one which should not be implemented. For more details on the CBA methodology see also Economic approaches for assessing climate change adaptation options under uncertainty.

In the described application of the CBA in Mexco, the benefits and costs were listed and systematised while simultaneously selecting a baseline scenario (i.e. the costs and benefits of not adapting to climate change). The data was validated with the experts at the respective ministries. All of the assumptions on e.g. discount rate, time horizon, investments, taxes, etc. are also stated in a final document so as to make the analysis clear and transparent.

All data was collected in an Excel-tool showing the NPV and other results clearly arranged for the decision makers. The tool allows carrying out a sensitivity analysis by changing the parameters (interest rate, estimated costs, estimated benefits, etc.). Finally, the final worksheet will contain an application to perform a Monte Carlo analysis to assess risk and estimate intervals for different scenarios.

Specifics of application

  • Stakeholders and institutional set-up

Several stakeholders, including the Ministry of Environment (SEMARNAT) and its independent bodies the National Forestry Commission (CONAFOR) and the National Commission for Natural Protected Areas (CONANP), as well as government and academic consultants, were involved in preparing steps 1 to 3. In May 2013 a workshop was held for implementing steps 4 to 7. Representatives from CONANP, CONAFOR, the National Institute for the Environment and Climate Change (INECC), the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), the National Commission for Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity (CONABIO) and SEMARNAT participated in the workshop. With support from GIZ, CONANP and CONAFOR are leading the process of developing the tool.

  • Input

Conducting a CBA is a complex process and requires several types of resources. First of all, considerable time is needed to gather the data for analysing the costs and benefits. In the case of unreliable data on the costs or benefits of an adaptation measure, extra time is spent on analysing additional sources or even computing the missing values.

If an institution is not familiar with using CBA, it might be necessary to hire an external expert to do the initial analysis. The budget for conducting a CBA will vary according to the number of measures for which the CBA has been developed.

In addition, several workshops have to be held. For instance to agree on the assumptions and the choice of adaptation measures to be analysed, among other things. Methodology trainings need to be developed and conducted together with the relevant institutions in order to institutionalise the CBA. Such a process can take several months. In the case of Mexico, it took four months to complete the methodology and apply it on the three pilot sectors.

  • Output

The final product is an Excel sheet, which serves as the main tool in carrying out the CBA for the selected measures in the three pilot sectors. It can be adapted for additional measures in the future and in other sectors. The tool is accompanied by a how-to manual, including tips for interpreting the results.

  • Capacity required and ease of use

In general, those conducting a CBA need to have knowledge or training in economics or finance since they need to understand the logic behind the analysis and the data and information requested. They also need to be capable of interpreting the following components of the results: NPV, internal rate of return (IRR), cost-benefit index and cost-effectiveness index. Some familiarity with Monte Carlo analysis is needed to interpret the results of that analysis, which is also included in the Excel tool used for the CBA. Even though the Excel tool looks simple and a manual was developed on how to use it, the person conducting the analysis needs to have intermediate knowledge of Excel.

  • Conclusions for future application

Outcome, added value and cost-benefit ratio are to be assessed at a later stage.

Potential for replication

The challenges identified in performing a CBA for climate change adaptation are:

  • Uncertainty of future impacts: the potential impacts of climate hazards are uncertain, and the benefits of adaptation actions are therefore also uncertain. Additionally, the limited information that exists on climate change and appropriate adaptation actions hinders the ability to correctly account for the costs and benefits.
  • Taking account of benefits: Although it can be assumed that the benefits of climate change adaptation actions are tangible and measurable, not all of them are obvious and their true benefits might be difficult to quantify in monetary terms.
  • Temporal effects: While a project has a specific time frame for its implementation, the effects (which can be measured in costs and benefits in the future) are not always evident and easy to assess, especially at the beginning of a project that is yet to be implemented.
  • Expert knowledge and/or support: Although the Excel tool that was developed for this CBA is straightforward and accessible, it is recommended that those who apply the analysis are familiar with CBA.

Sources:

GIZ (2007): Economic Approaches to Climate Change Adaptation and their Role in Project Prioritisation and Appraisal. Eschborn.

Contacts

For additional information or material: Camilo de la Garza, Advisor, Mexican-German Climate Change Alliance, camilo.dlgarza@giz.de

Gloria Cuevas, Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT), gloria.cuevas@semarnat.gob.mx

José Alberto Lara, consultant in developing the methodology, jose.lara@uia.mx

Mexico: Multi-Criteria-Analysis

Download Method Brief (pdf)

Piloting an MCA for prioritising adaptation measures for three sectors in Mexico

Tool

A Multi-Criteria-Analysis (MCA) is a methodology for prioritising adaptation measures which does not rely purely on economic calculations but rather on qualitative assessments of criteria. In Mexico, an MCA is being piloted in three sectors (irrigated agriculture, water, forest ecosystems). It is part of the larger process of creating a prioritisation tool. This process comprises four phases: phase 1 – identification of adaptation measures; phase 2 – MCA; phase 3 – detailed Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) for measures ranked highest by MCA; phase 4 – design of the final tool to be used by government bodies. The MCA is based on the UNEP MCA4Climate policy evaluation framework and the utility index Índice de Utilidad de Prácticas de Adaptación (IUPA) used at the national level.

Scope and Entry Points

The Mexican Government’s long term vision regarding adaptation to climate change is manifested in the Climate Change Law, which was enacted in June 2012. The law gives special attention to adaptation to climate change, which allows for the formulation of policies in this field. As established in this legislation, the Mexican Government is responsible for formulating the National Climate Change Strategy (Estrategia Nacional del Cambio Climático, ENCC) as well as the second Special Programme on Climate Change (Programa Especial del Cambio Climático, PECC). The former aims to establish a framework for national climate change policies, programmes and actions, while the latter establishes specific goals for sectorial ministries relating to both adaptation and mitigation.

Other policies, programmes and projects within this policy framework will be designed, but due to a lack of human, technical and financial resources, not all will be implemented. The prioritisation of measures using an MCA approach ensures that important criteria are met and that decisions in favour of specific measures are harmonised. The Ministry of Environment (SEMARNAT) has commissioned its independent bodies to carry out specific tasks: the National Water Commission (CONAGUA) is to implement the methodology for water policies, while the National Forestry Commission (CONAFOR) and the National Commission for Natural Protected Areas (CONANP) are to develop the prioritisation tool in the Forest Ecosystem sector. The ministry of Agriculture (SAGARPA) has also applied to prioritise adaptation measures in irrigated agriculture as a pilot sector.

How it works

The MCA is comprised of several steps that are carried out in a participatory way with relevant stakeholders.

1.Establish the context: Clarify climate policy goals for adaptation in general or for a particular sector. Identify the decision makers and main stakeholders. Consider the national socio-economic, political, institutional and environmental setting.

2. Identify the options to be evaluated: Draw up a set of adaptation policy options. These can be either single policy actions formulated in different degrees of detail or a portfolio with a mix of policy options.

3. Select criteria and indicators: Based on existing literature and previous experience, select general criteria and indicators that will be crucial for the MCA. Consider at what level of criteria the analysis should occur.

4. Validate criteria and indicators: Together with a group of stakeholders who are familiar with the subject matter or the specific sector, consider whether it is necessary to modify the suggested generic or sector-specific criteria and indicators.

5. Assign a weight to each criterion: Stakeholders, assign a weight to all criteria based on the preferences agreed by the group.

6. Score the different options: Assess the performance of each policy option against all the criteria using the chosen assessment methods. Based on this assessment, score the options against the criteria (in each scenario if different scenarios are explicitly modelled).

7. Using the scores and weights (SxW), calculate overall input and output valuesfor each policy option: Assign weights to each criterion. Calculate aggregate weighted scores for each option at each level in the hierarchy, keeping the input groups separated from the output groups. Calculate overall weighted scores on the input side and on the output side.

8. Examine and test the results: Examine the results, comparing the performance profiles of options for each criterion to identify highly promising or subordinate options (i.e. those with the highest and lowest scores) and to highlight particular strengths and weaknesses. Compare pairs or combinations of options if applicable. Carry out sensitivity analysis by altering weights and/or scores and examine how those changes affect relative rankings of policy options. Compare the performance of options across different scenarios if explicitly modelled. In light of the results, consider new policy options.

Specifics of Application

  • Stakeholders and institutional set-up

Several stakeholders, including the Ministry of Environment (SEMARNAT) and its independent bodies the National Forestry Commission (CONAFOR) and the National Commission for Natural Protected Areas (CONANP), as well as government and academic consultants, were involved in preparing steps 1 to 3. In May 2013 a workshop was held for implementing steps 4 to 7. Representatives from CONANP, CONAFOR, the National Institute for the Environment and Climate Change (INECC), the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), the National Commission for Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity (CONABIO) and SEMARNAT participated in the workshop. With support from GIZ, CONANP and CONAFOR are leading the process of developing the tool.

  • Input

For each step in the process, from identifying adaptation options to the final selection of options, several stakeholder meetings were convened which needed to be prepared, organised and documented. The degree of resource intensity associated with identifying the adaptation options depends on the level of institutionalisation. In the case of Mexico the process took five months. In addition, a good facilitator is needed to moderate, draw conclusions from, and document discussions. Basic spreadsheet software (e.g. Excel) is required for calculating and visualising the scoring and weighting.

  • Output

Once the criteria are validated and weighted, and each adaptation measure has been assessed against the criteria, the information is entered into a software application. A spider diagram or another form of visualisation (e.g. x-y-graph) is used to show the result of the assessment. In order to ensure transparency, good documentation of the discussions and decisions that contributed to the development of the criteria and the weighting is equally important.

  • Capacity required and ease of use

As this tool builds on participation with various stakeholders, several workshops have to be held at the different stages before the tool can be fully validated. As is the case with other participatory processes, general facilitation plays a key role. Especially at the beginning, but essentially at every workshop, a good introduction and explanation of the need for the tool is required to build understanding amongst all parties involved. In addition, participants need to have an understanding of adaptation. For those who were inexperienced in the field, the adaptation background was laid out in one of the first workshops and was recapitulated at the beginning of the following workshops. The software that is needed to display the results of selecting and weighting the criteria is easily replicable and can be developed using a simple spreadsheet program. An appropriate individual needs to be trained in using the tool in order to carry out the workshops. At a later stage there should be one responsible person in each institution who is trained to handle the software.

Conclusions for future Application

  • Outcome and added value

Since this MCA application for climate change adaptation is a pilot, it is not yet possible to definitively predict the changes the tool will imply for the institutions. However, CONANP and CONAFOR intend to use this tool to improve their decision-making processes so as to implement adaptation measures in a more transparent way and create acceptance for those measures.

  • Cost-benefit ratio

Users of the tool do not need to purchase resource-intensive appliances. However, preparing, organising and documenting the stakeholder workshops is time-consuming and requires significant personnel. In the case of Mexico, expenses included costs for consultants who were brought in to prepare the adaptation measures, establish the first set of indicators, develop the spreadsheet and compile the workshop reports. The benefits of this process are high levels of transparency and acceptance.

  • Potential for replication

This tool is currently being piloted for the water and forest ecosystem sectors. It has already been carried out successfully in the agricultural sector. The final product of this prioritisation pilot project (including MCA and CBA) will be presented in a handbook in simple and accessible form to help ensure it can be replicated in other sectors and institutions.

References

UNDP (2011). A Practical Framework for Planning Pro-Development Climate. United Nations Environment Programme.

GIZ (2013). Workshop Report/Memoria del Taller “Hacia el análisis multicriterio para la priorización de medidas de adaptación en ecosistemas forestales.” (Spanish)

Contact persons:

Andrew Rhodes, Director for Climate Change Strategies, Mexican National Commission of Natural Protected Areas (Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas, CONANP), arhodes@conanp.gob.mx

Carmen Gómez Lozano, Subdivision for Forest Carbon Markets, Mexican National Forest Commission (Comisión Nacional Forestal, CONAFOR), cgomez@conafor.gob.mx

Sofía Muñoz, sofia.munoz@giz.de, Camilo de la Garza, camilo.dlgarza@giz.de, Alianza Mexicana-Alemana de Cambio Climático, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, Calle Odontología No. 1, Colonia Copilco, Delegación Coyoacán , CP 04360

Tunisia: Climate proofing a farm production system

Download Method Brief (pdf)

Climate Proofing of the Agriculture, Forestry and Livestock Production System at the Saouef Farm.

Method

The Climate Proofing (CP) methodology used for the Saouef farm in Zaghouan, Tunisia, is adapted from the Climate Proofing approach developed by GIZ. It is a systematic analysis of risks caused by climate change and for suggesting appropriate adaptation measures. It was implemented in 2011 in order to take account of the climate change dimension when planning farm activities (dedicated to sheep breeding and to fodder seed production).

Scope and entry points

The overall aim was to apply the method at local level (project, action plan). The entry point for integrating adaptation measures into the farm management plan was the revision of the farm management plan that mainly focuses on agriculture, forestry and livestock production systems. The method was implemented at the request of the Office de l’Elevage et des Pâturages (OEP) in October 2011. The resulting model can be replicated in similar regions.

How it works

The method was implemented with OEP officials and farm managers, within a training/action workshop, during which the methodology and tools were presented and practically applied to the situation of the farm. This covered the first two stages of CP (see figure below), which were simplified in order to facilitate their use. The process has been partly completed, for a limited number of exposure units.

 Step 1: Superficial screening/filtering

The screening involved the two following sub-steps:

  1. Identification of the plan components and expected targets of these components (in the case of the farm this refers to production/development components).
  2. Identification of activities and exposure units (EU). EU refer to anything that can be assessed through a climate stimulus, e.g. a target group, a productive activity, a geographic entity, natural resource or ecosystem linked to the climate stimulus. Every activity is checked against the degree of exposure (scoring from 0 to +++) by answering the following four questions:
  • Does the Saouef farm plan include measures in the following fields: rural economy, rural development, forest, natural resources, water, and disaster prevention?
  • Does the Saouef farm plan include measures in one of the following natural areas: coastal, flood prone, mountain zones, areas often devastated by cyclones, arid zones?
  • Are the planned expected development outcomes dependent upon important climate factors: temperature, rainfall, wind, extreme events?
  • Would it be possible, within the framework of the plan, to improve the adaptation capacity of target groups or eco- (agro-) systems?

Step 2: Detailed analysis

The analysis of biophysical and socioeconomic impacts of climate trends was carried out for three priority EUs with regards to farm productions (stock breeding and production of fodder, cactus and alfalfa).

Climate stimulus

  • Decrease in rainfall and increase in variability combined with more frequent drought
  • +2°C
  • Floods

Biophysical impacts

  • Drop in yields
  • Variability in production
  • Development of weeds
  • Biomass degradation

Socioeconomic impacts

  • Instability in farm income
  • Drop in investment capacities
  • Loss of occasional employment
  • Reduction in performance bonus
  • Resorting to imports (outflow of currency)
  • Reduction in EU inputs at national level

Risk analysis

  • High risk with regard to achievement of targets established in the field of seed production

Current capacities to manage risks

  • Conservation farming
  • Development of phytosanitary treatments
  • Data sheet by species (requirements)

(Additional) CCA alternatives

  • Irrigation possibilities improving the level of organic material in the soil
  • Developing the modification and seed collection programme
  • Follow-up system for production/yield in relation to climate conditions
  • Consolidation of CES work

Source: Preliminary analysis for the exposure units: alfalfa seeds production (extracts)

The relevance of these effects on planning has been assessed while taking into account the probability that such effects would occur and the importance of their impacts on EU targets.

Step 3 and 4: adaptation alternatives and integration into the plan

Steps 3 (analysis of adaptation options) and 4 (integration in the management plan) were only carried out for the most relevant effects. An action plan was developed within the context of the workshop so as to finalise the CP application, while proceeding with training/action.

Specifics of application

  • Stakeholders and institutional set-up

The method was implemented as part of a workshop designed to introduce the actors to the use of the CP method. The workshop was facilitated by experts from the CCC/GIZ project, who had already experimented with CP within the framework of other initiatives (see ‘Sources’ below). The OEP was represented by central level representatives, in addition to farm management officers. Representatives of general departments in charge of farm production and development/conservation of agricultural lands (Ministry of Agriculture) also took part in the works. This enabled the project, on one hand, to take advantage of the technical-economic knowledge that needed to be fed into the analyses, and on the other hand to facilitate the integration of the CC dimension into the management planning of the OEP farms.

  • Input

The most important input is current land data of this state-owned farm, which needed to be collected, and which benefits from the presence of experienced technicians. The need for technical expertise could be met thanks to the participation of OEP staff and of the Ministry of Agriculture. The duration required to apply the approach is difficult to estimate, as the process is still on-going. Approximately 6 months will be required in order to obtain a validated updating of the management plan and achieve internal agreement on its implementation.

  • Output

At this stage the results can be summarised in a preliminary sensitivity analysis of the 3 EU (stock breeding, cactus fodder production, alfalfa) with an initial identification of adaptation alternatives. The final product would be a restructured management plan integrating adaptation measures to CC.

  • Capacities required and ease of use

The application of the method requires:

  1. The availability of basic and reliable data over a sufficient period. At local level, this often represents a challenge, especially in terms of continuity in recording and storing the data.
  2. An initiating training, the involvement of the concerned actors, who are able to work in team and to take charge of this task.
  3. The existence of a planning system that is sufficiently developed to allow for easy identification of the CCA entry points.
  4. In addition, the management plan implementation system must be consolidated in order to ensure CCA follow-up, in particular the impact of adaptation alternatives to be applied.

Conclusions for future applications

  • Outcome and added value

The process is still on-going but the initial outcomes demonstrate the integration of CCA in the management of state farms under the responsibility of OEP.

  1. The training/action, although short, will continue throughout the stages of CP and the OEP will therefore have access to a pool of resources capable of carrying out this diagnosis.
  2. Analysis tools have been made available to participants to proceed with the exercise on other EU.
  • Cost-benefit ratio

Assessment is not yet possible as the method has only been partly tested. We can assume a positive ratio, since the establishment of CCA measures in the management plan could ensure greater sustainable productivity among the various speculations, while avoiding the degradation of soil and water resources in particular.

  • Potential for replication

The underlying approach of this CP method is relatively simple and could easily be adapted by actors on the ground. Furthermore, the OEP is operational throughout the regions of Tunisia thanks to a well-developed structure. The coaching activities for farmers (through awareness-raising and grouping professionals) and the support for research and development (hosting and tutoring of students in agronomy studies) in the field of stock breeding and grazing make for a good replication method and for a CCA integration method.

Reference persons and further information

Documents:

  • Report of the CP workshop – Saouef farm – Zaghouan – July 2012 (CCC/GIZ project, PIK, OEP)
  • Other previous experiences of the method testing (PNO4, PGRN)
  • Climate Proofing for Development (GIZ publication) – March 2011
  • Climate Proofing for Development: a Training Toolkit
  • Report of the CP workshop – ODEPSYPANO – Béja – December 2010 (CCC/GIZ project, MEDD, MARH)
  • Presentations of a CP application example (CCC/GIZ project)
  • Documenting the application of the CP tools in the regional plan of Jendouba, the PGRNII project, the PNO4 project, for various exposure units, dry grain farming, forests, cattle breeding, underground water, irrigated farming.

Reference persons: